A judge in Riviera Beach, Florida has ruled a law banning sagging pants is unconstitutional.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008

A 17 year old boy spent the night in jail last week after an officer said he spotted the teenager riding his bicycle with 4 to 5 inches of boxer shorts exposed.

Circuit Judge Paul Moyle ruled that the law was unconstitutional based on limited facts. However, the charge hasn't been dropped yet and a new arraignment is set for Oct. 5.

The law was voted on back in March. A first offense for sagging pants carries a $150 fine or community service, and habitual offenders face the possibility of jail time.

The boy's public defender, Carol Bickerstaff, said she wants the city to drop the law regardless of whether anyone dislikes low-riding pants. She also told the judge, "Your honor, we now have the fashion police

It may be speech, but it might not be protected speech.
Walking down main street with your balls hanging out might be speech, but does anyone dispute a locality's right to regulate this fairly and equally.

The problem here appears to be that this is so vague as to afford the individual no insight into whether he is in violation or not, and concomtiantly afford law enforcement to window to justify after the fact selective enforcement.

(I agree with you in this instance, but it's a slippery slope. Actually, come to think of it, if he could say it was a statement reflecting the views of the saggy pants group which has political statements, wouldn't that be the same as them saying you can't wear a McCain 08 shirt or something?

__________________
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Then remember that half the people in the world are stupider than that." --George Carlin

It may be speech, but it might not be protected speech.
Walking down main street with your balls hanging out might be speech, but does anyone dispute a locality's right to regulate this fairly and equally.

The problem here appears to be that this is so vague as to afford the individual no insight into whether he is in violation or not, and concomtiantly afford law enforcement to window to justify after the fact selective enforcement.

Have nudists ever gone to court on those grounds?

I'm genuinely interested in seeing the outcome.

__________________
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Then remember that half the people in the world are stupider than that." --George Carlin

(I agree with you in this instance, but it's a slippery slope. Actually, come to think of it, if he could say it was a statement reflecting the views of the saggy pants group which has political statements, wouldn't that be the same as them saying you can't wear a McCain 08 shirt or something?

Flag burning as part of an assembly is most certainly saying something. If you are using it to kindle you firewood, then probably not.

Slippery slopes are fallacies. Societies have to draw lines or standards and rules are rendered unworkable.

Is it illegal to walk around in your underwear if you so choose? As in, exposing the entirety of a pair of boxers sans pants at all. How about a woman with only a bra on the upper half of the body? How could you enforce that and show that the garment being worn is a bra and not a swim top? I think this law is simply unenforceable.

The Daytona decision I do not see as being formed on a strict construction/originalist interpretation as the context for this thread. It's based on that dayum 14th Amendment incorporation which expands Federal power. So it's based on the living document pov for interpretation. This results in more centralization something which carries it's own threats to liberty. Local communities, states also have rights—not just individuals. Then there are different kinds of rights. Not all are fundamental or absolute. Some are relative.

By strict construction, the only way you could rule it unconstitutional is under the restriction against "excessive bail and fines"... Seriously, $20-50 is reasonable and makes much more money for the State. On the other hand, some states are allowed to have anti-dumping laws that range from $10,000 to $50,000, so maybe this could be perfectly fine.

Now if you want to look at the Constitution loosely, you MIGHT be able to make an argument for "freedom of expression"...of course, even that's a really weak argument.